I a just going offthe actions. To me if you post a title and OP like that with zero summation then yes it seems trollish.

I mean it would be no different if I posted a title like

"Why are all conservatives so heartless?"

andmy OP was..

"I am so sick of conservatives. They don't seem to care aout anyone and will walk over all of us"

Does't that seem trollish and doesn't is thread seem that way? There is zero fact in this, it's emotonal and it just feels like it is here to pick
a fight. Now, the rest of my post DOES say that this could be a hurt person too.

As a woman myself i'm quite offended. Women aren't better or more peaceful than men.
If you or any other don't believe it, i have a tip:
Come over here to Germany, visit Bergen-Belsen or any other nazi concentration camp. Listen to the Stories, especially those of the female wardens who
tortured and killed countless inmates. Some of them in the most disgusting ways, like let hungry dogs loose on helpless inmates and watch them die.
They did it all just for the fun of it.

I don't know why humans kill, but animals do it to, they also fight. It's just nature i guess, in a weird way.
I like violence,but only in video games and movies, nobody gets hurt when i "kill" graphics with a chainsaw

Originally posted by catwhoknows
This is a post that is about men wanting to kill everything that moves.

Women do not want to kill, they want to nurture. Or most of them do.

I am asking this question - Why do men want to kill?

Men cause wars because they want to kill.

I am sick and tired of it.

I find your statement sexist and divisive. There is nothing constructive here and you are applying a broad generalization across an entire sex. When I
read it I couldn't help but think of the old nursery rhyme:

What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails
That's what little boys are made of !"
What are little girls made of?
"Sugar and spice and all things nice
That's what little girls are made of!"

Well maybe a few million years of the hunter gatherer life has something to do with it. Also men (and women) have fought each other throughout history
to protect their resources or take the resources of others, kind of like survival of the fittest. Sex even plays into it all too, men are chemically
urged to push their genetics forward and this also promotes survival of the fittest while women desire the best secured environment possible to raise
their young. A lot of evolution involved here in all this…

Today we have the situation of still having all these evolutionary traits, but with a mind that can intelligently choose or not choose them, but one
needs to remember these forces are always there every minute of the day as they always have been. For the OP instead of applying your reasons to ask
with some political “are sons/daughters go to war” statement I think it is better to look at this with examples from around the world.

Though man has improved at lightning speed to overcome millions of years of evolutionary instinct we still have a long way to go, sorry. One look
that the Taliban in Afghanistan and how they fight and how they treat the women there shows this. Look how women are treated in India and China and if
we head over to Africa one look in Darfur and it is truly man in his most animal mental state.

So in the end I guess the answer is man is this way because that is the way we are, and I’m sure with further evolution we will change but evolution
is rather slow.

Those soldiers that died in Iraq and Afghanistan did because they joined the armed forces. That's what you risk when you join. It's entirely
volunteer. Also, for those that believe we came from animals and it's all about protecting the 'pack', you live in your own reality and should
seriously question your morals and where they come from. Examine yourself. The theory on Evolution of man is a lie and responsible for so much evil.

Some women do that, but war is a male game - and stupid, because they die in heaps.

Your statement is deeply sexist and superficial, just as the opening post is.
Do you know who invented weapons? Not men.
And besides, when it comes to aggression, women are just as aggressive as men, just in a different way. But so much for simple facts.

It's not in man's genes to kill, it's in the genes to protect and to hunt. Is that killing? yes it is. But you're accusing an entire sex of
killing women, innocent animals and whatnot. That is a completely ridiculous and offensive claim to make, and the fact that I have to make this clear
to you is a bit sad imo.

And guess what, I have the right to participate in this discussion, just as anyone else who likes, or don't like it. Welcome to the world of the
internet and free speech.

If you were starving I would hunt and kill an animal in the wild to feed you and your family if it came to that

I killed a boarhog with a single shot rifle once. First I prayed for it to be a quick kill and that it did not go to waste whatsoever.
One shot and it was dead. I cried. But for serious reasons that I can not disclose I had to do it. The meat did not go to waste either. I prefer not
to hunt unless its for survival. I also prefer if it had to be done that a man do it. I'll go pick the berries.

Women/Mothers will kill in the blink of an eye to protect their young or die trying.

I hate to admit this but there are women who do try to start trouble. We have been known to be attention seekers and push a man to see how far he
would go for us.

I could be mistaken but it almost looks like your the one right now trying to get the men riled up. I'm sorry if I'm wrong

It's not in man's genes to kill, it's in the genes to protect and to hunt. Is that killing? yes it is. But you're accusing an entire sex of
killing women, innocent animals and whatnot. That is a completely ridiculous and offensive claim to make, and the fact that I have to make this clear
to you is a bit sad imo.

Well maybe if we didn't come up the predator line and were grass grazer things would be different, but then evolution has shown that eating grass
takes little intelligence to do, and so intelligence is not promoted where hunting for your food will push intelligence forward, especially when you
happen to be weak and slow as we are.

One interesting thing to remember is females across many species are the aggressors, so I would not rule out the fury of a woman to be as aggressive
or more than a man.

I'm a woman in my fifties. A gentle and nurturing woman who people feel safe with.

However I've killed a man once, when it was necessary. I've fed my family by hunting, shooting pretty little bunnies and snakes, and fishing. And I
thoroughly enjoy killing in RPGs. The males I know are just as gentle as I am, but also just as capable of aggressive behaviour when aggression is
needed.

The idea that wars are caused by people wanting to kill is bunk.

Wars are caused by greedy old bastards in power, and if a woman is in power she is just as likely to start a war as any man is.

Take the undeclared war on Iraq for example. Bush may have got off on the idea of killing Iraqis, but he had previously enjoyed putting firecrackers
up frogs to watch them explode, so he's a crazy nutcase who doesn't count. Powermongers in America wanted to prevent Saddam selling oil for currency
other than USD, as he was planning to and the USD for many years had been propped up by an agreement with OPEC to only ever sell oil for USD, which
meant other countries had to accept unequal trade terms with America in order to get dollars to buy oil, thus propping up the American economy at the
expense of their own.

Wanting control over Iraqi oil and a permanent base in the Middle East were considerations too.

The generals in the army aren't there to kill indiscriminately either. Many protested when Bush wanted to attack Iran and prevented him doing so.

Some soldiers might like killing before they sign up, and some might learn to enjoy killing after fighting for a while and seeing their mates killed,
but most recruits have other reasons for signing up. This is why ads to join the military push the training and "seeing the world" aspects, and pay
out inducements to get folk to sign up. If people joined in order to kill, you can be sure the military would be advertising, "join up and shoot lots
of real live people to death! We'll even provide guns and bullets!"

I wonder how many young people who signed up did so because they were nurturers, and wanted the inducement money to help out their mums who were in
need.

There are people who want to kill, both men and women. The difference is that women, accustomed to the idea of being weak, are more likely to do it
carefully, by poisoning, backstabbing, or murdering a person's reputation. Men are more likely to act in a sudden temper, and get themselves caught.

Originally posted by NewWorldDisorder
The only reason men today don't WANT to kill is because they were born into a "femmie" generation of men, our grandfathers would beat us with a
belt if they could.. Anyone else notice how this has gotten worse with time? We were bread to kill in order to feed the ones that we love. We're
nothing more than animals on this planet, homosapiens. No jokes. All men were once equal...

I think I will go hang myself now....

How does bread hang itself?

There would have always been "femmie" men, it's genes, not environment. Quite likely you'd have been a "femmie" whatever period of history you
were born into.

My maternal grandfather was born in 1870 and was a gentle poet who had a bad habit of giving away the family's possessions to anyone in need, because
he had such a soft heart. He would never use fly paper because it was cruel to flies, and my grandmother had to get rid of pests when he was not
looking.

My paternal grandfather used to beat my Dad, (when Dad was a kid,) almost daily, with wood, belts or fists, but Dad never grew up wanting to kill
anyone either. He was just a tough drunk who liked to bully and belt women, unless he was playing around with them. I guess you'd have classed him as
manly.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.